HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 24 19981
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
March 24, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 3 p.m. by Council Member Kathy Sutter in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
A]-,n prPCPnt-
L. Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL STORAGE OF PERSONAL
RECREATIONAL BOAT AND TRAILERS, RECREATIONAL TYPE VEHICLES AND
MINI - STORAGE AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL ZONE (AB98 -112)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that
property owner Larry Jordan is requesting that recreational vehicle (RV) storage to be allowed.
The Planning Commission did not oppose the idea. Staff recommended adding it as a
conditional use to review traffic, screening, and other items. It is an outright permitted use in
Gateway Industrial.
Brenner asked for clarification regarding reviewing resort commercial and whether it
would be better to review it all at once. Goodwin stated that they could, but staff is processing
an application. Staff is recommending denial in resort commercial and approval in neighborhood
commercial.
Nelson clarified the zoning of the Jordan property. This would require notification of the
neighbors.
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP
FROM RURAL FIVE ACRES (R5A) TO LIGHT IMPACT INDUSTRIAL (LII) FOR
APPROXIMATELY 24 ACRES AND FROM RURAL FIVE ACRES (R5A) TO
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) FOR APPROXIMATELY 23 ACRES IN THE
URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA, PLUS AN ADJACENT AREA OF INTERSTATE 5
RIGHT -OF -WAY IN THE CHERRY POINT - FERNDALE SUBAREA (AB98 -113)
Planning and Development Committee, 3/24/98, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Carl Batchelor, Planning and Development Services Senior Planner, stated that this area
was designated as part of the Ferndale Urban Growth Area (UGA) during the Comprehensive
Plan process. This is continuing a request that started with an Urban Fringe Subarea Plan. The
staff recommends approval. The County has three requests to revise the UGA and staff will be
working with the city of Ferndale on different areas. There was discussion regarding the
Ferndale UGA.
Hoag mentioned that the findings, on page 153, item #9 of the Council packet, which the
Silver Creek corridor is in the flood plain. Approximately 100 feet of the proposed property is in
the flood plain. Batchelor stated that was correct.
Hoag was concerned that the area is not appropriate for Light Impact Industrial (LII).
Sutter stated that rural zoning is not appropriate within an urban growth area, which this
area is in.
Batchelor stated it is in the UGA now, but is zoned rural.
Brenner asked if it would cause any problems with Emergency Services if it were taken
out of the UGA.
Brown stated that if it is in the UGA and when it is annexed, the City of Ferndale will
provide emergency services.
Hoag stated that it is not appropriate to zone a piece of land if the actual use does not
encourage the zoned use.
Sutter stated that it does allow for buffering and mitigation if it would be included.
Bill Geyer, Geyer and Associates, stated that he represents Cloverleaf Associates and the
Patten/Gustafson folks, and has followed this issue. On the western portion of the site, a solution
would be to zone LII, but say that access would occur through the parcels due east, not south
through the UGA boundary line. They would mandate through a development regulation to go
through the area at the east. All properties from the creek to Rural Avenue will develop.
Batchelor stated that as flood plain, there are automatic controls even if the Critical Areas
Ordinance (CAO) is repealed.
Dawson stated it is not a good place for farming either. The area next to a stream can be
developed successfully.
Brenner questioned whether it would be a problem if they pulled that parcel. Batchelor
stated that he didn't have a problem. It has some prime soils, is in Agricultural /Open Space, and
is 20 acres, so it would be subject to the Agricultural Protection Overlay.
Goodwin mentioned that if the Council were to change the Planning Commission's
I recommendation, the Council would have to hold its own public hearing, which would allow the
2 property owner to state his preferences for the options on the property.
3
4 Geyer commented that his firm initiated part of this request. He has not talked to the
5 property owner. Ferndale's primary concern is having Ferndale jurisdiction on both sides of
6 Slater Road, utility planning, and meeting their additional needs for general commercial /light
7 impact industrial acreage. Mr. Mohs' parcel is separated by the creek. His clients request that
8 Council move forward on this request and deal Mr. Mobs' property separately.
9
10 There was discussion about the requirement of having a public hearing if this parcel is
11 held from the entire request.
12
13 There was discussion regarding the owner's tax changes if the zoning were to change.
14
15 Nelson moved approval of the Planning Commission recommendation.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
20 INTERLOCAL ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LYNDEN
21 REGARDING ANNEXATION WITHIN THE URBAN GROWTH AREA,
22 AMENDMENT #1 REGARDING THE SOUTH JUDSON ANNEXATION, AND
23 AMENDMENT #2 REGARDING THE FARMERS CO -OP ANNEXATION
24 (AB98 -129)
25
26 Goodwin stated that this is almost identical to an interlocal agreement passed with the
27 City of Lynden a few meetings ago. Wording regarding the revenue sharing agreement was a
28 concern of the City. The wording is item #10, the sales tax revenue. It was a matter of how they
29 determine the base value for sales tax revenue. There has been agreement to calculate the
30 formula on an annual basis. Staff recommended that this amendment be made.
31
32 The recommended amendment #2 is that for each future annexation with the City of
33 Lynden, the Council would do another amendment. The annexation proposed is called the
34 Whatcom Farmers' Coop. One issue surrounds the Ford dealer. The map shows what the City
35 agreed to.
36
37 This is being brought forward as two amendments to the interlocal agreement. The first
38 item was already approved by the County Council, but has not yet been signed. On the second
39 item, the deadline is the next day.
40
41 Brenner moved to recommend approval.
42
43 Motion carried unanimously.
44
Planning and Development Committee, 3/24/98, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4. REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO AMEND THE
OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP FROM AGRICULTURE
(AG) TO RURAL TEN ACRES (R10A) FOR APPROXIMATELY 60 ACRES
IN THE LYNDEN - NOOKSACK VALLEY SUBAREA (AB98 -130)
Carl Batchelor, Planning and Development Services Senior Planner, stated this is
following up on an amendment in the Comprehensive Plan change from Agriculture to Rural,
and on zoning implementation. The Planning Commission was concerned about losing
agricultural land. The Commission is not recommending approval because there was a lack of a
simple majority.
Sutter stated that there are three options: 1. Place on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment docket, 2. Proceed with the rezone, or 3. Send back to Planning Commission for
another hearing.
Brenner asked about the classification of the soils.
Batchelor explained the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) classification
of soils. They don't look at local microclimates.
There was clarification of the procedure for approving this request.
Brenner moved to proceed by scheduling for a public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
OTHER BUSINESS
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING GIFTED SHORT PLATS (AB98 -141)
Roland Middleton, Planning and Development Services Land Use Division, gave
background on the original exemption for gifted short plats. It was written in the original Title
20, but not allowed by State law. The State requires that any subdivision of land be platted.
There are certain exemptions that counties can do, such as cemeteries, larger tracts, and others.
Gift deeds are no longer exemptions. They are directly prohibited.
At this point, they are going through Title 21. Through this process, several people want
to do gift deed short plats, which the County is currently allowing. Staff is recommending that
the County allow the people going through the process to continue. If the County were sued, the
only thing that would happen would be the State would come after the County. No neighbors
would be impacted.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
Middleton continued to state that, in his opinion, the folks that apply now for gift deeds
are vested, if the County changes its Title 21 to comply with State law.
There was discussion about implementing the provision.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that
hopefully, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will wrap up the changes to Title 21 in the
next few weeks, to be forwarded to the Planning Commission.
Sutter outlined the Zender situation and discussed the short plat process.
Mark Anderson, Mark Anderson Land and Escrow Companies, stated that he represented
Pearl Zender. This summary gives short plan and does not require any roads. Both lots front the
Mt. Baker Highway.
Nelson stated that through the gifting process, no survey was required. Anderson stated
that there needs to be amendments to allow sales outside the family with certain exemptions.
Brown stated that if the property was gifted prior to 1991, then it requires a licensed
surveyor to prepare the property legal description. The only thing they haven't done is go out in
the field and plug the stakes in. If they want to make them do something, they should require
that they put stakes in the property to match the survey.
There was discussion on survey requirements.
Middleton stated that in this case, there are substantial differences between a legal
description and actually platting the property.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/24/98, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Sutter asked if the County was liable if there was a private dispute over the property line.
Middleton stated that, at this point, the only dispute would be between immediate family
members. If sold outside of the immediate family, a plat has to be done.
Sutter questioned what they are being asked to do.
Nelson stated that they are re -doing the Title 20. The problem is having two processes
regarding gifting and short plats. Either they should allow the gifting or eliminate doing it.
There was discussion about surveying property, the short plat process,
Middleton stated that they cannot change State law. He feels for those in this type of
situation, but he can't violate the State law. It is stricter than Whatcom County would like.
Sutter stated that all they can do would be to let those already in the process finish it.
OTHER BUSINESS
Sutter stated that Brown brought forward an issue about the Feather's property. Goodwin
stated that was before the Planning Commission.
Sutter stated that Sid Wallace, Point Roberts, is requesting County policy on development
regarding substandard housing.
There was discussion regarding clarification of past action on the accessory housing
issue.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Record Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Council Member